Lawyers, including Justices, remain bound by the high standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct even when acting as litigants in their own cases; they cannot segregate their personality and must always maintain respect for the courts, refrain from actions that undermine judicial integrity or influence proceedings (including observing the sub judice rule), and such ethical violations are subject to administrative discipline separate from contempt proceedings and the "clear and present danger" test.

The administrative case originated as an offshoot of the quo warranto proceedings (G.R. No. 237428) filed by the Solicitor General against then-Chief Justice Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the position. Prior to the quo warranto case, an impeachment complaint had also been filed against her in the House of Representatives. During the pendency of both the impeachment and quo warranto matters, the Court observed that Sereno engaged in numerous public appearances and statements regarding the cases.

• Following the filing of an impeachment complaint and a subsequent quo warranto petition against her, respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno engaged in a series of public activities, including speaking engagements at universities, public forums, media interviews, and rallies.
• The Supreme Court observed that during these appearances, Sereno publicly discussed the merits of the pending quo warranto case, defended herself against the charges, cast aspersions on the impartiality of Members of the Court, criticized the Members of Congress involved in the impeachment, and imputed ill motives to the government.
• Specific examples cited by the Court included statements where Sereno claimed the grant of the quo warranto would lead to dictatorship, destroy judicial independence, questioned the fairness of the proceedings citing potential bias from Justices she considered rivals, and suggested the case was an attack on the judiciary orchestrated by politicians.
• The Court noted Sereno chose to litigate her case publicly and through the media rather than primarily through the judicial process, refusing initially to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the quo warranto case.
• Based on these observations detailed in the quo warranto decision (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018), the Court ordered Sereno to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the CPR and NCJC, specifically for transgressing the sub judice rule and casting aspersions on the Court.
• Sereno submitted a Verified Compliance, arguing against sanctions and moving for the inhibition of several Justices.

• N/A (This administrative matter was initiated by the Supreme Court itself through a Show Cause Order based on its findings in G.R. No. 237428, not by a petitioner filing a complaint). The Court's position, forming the basis for the Show Cause Order, was that Respondent's actions violated the CPR and NCJC.

• Respondent argued she should not be judged by the stringent standards of the CPR and NCJC because she was participating in the quo warranto case as a party-litigant, not as counsel or a judge.
• Respondent contended her public statements did not create a "clear and present danger" to the administration of justice, which she argued was the standard required for contempt, asserting the case's inherent controversial nature attracted public attention.
• Respondent claimed her public statements were made in the discharge of her duty as a Justice and lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for law and legal processes.
• Respondent asserted that even if violations occurred, disciplinary action was unwarranted because she was responding to repeated public attacks by the Solicitor General and was allegedly denied due process.
• Respondent filed a motion seeking the inhibition of six Associate Justices based on alleged bias, reiterating grounds raised in the main quo warranto case.

• May respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct based on her public actions and statements regarding the quo warranto case against her during its pendency?

• Yes, respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is found guilty of violating CANON 13, Rule 13.02, and CANON 11 of the CPR, and Sections 3, 7, & 8 of CANON 1, Sections 1 & 2 of CANON 2, Sections 2 & 4 of CANON 3, and Sections 2 & 6 of CANON 4 of the NCJC.
• The Court rejected the argument that respondent should be treated as an ordinary litigant; lawyers and Justices are held to a higher standard of conduct at all times, whether in their professional or private capacities, and cannot divide their personality. Her status as a litigant did not absolve her from ethical responsibilities.
• The Court clarified that the "clear and present danger" test applies to contempt proceedings, not administrative disciplinary cases concerning violations of lawyer's ethical duties under the CPR and NCJC. This case is an administrative matter based on the latter.
• The Court affirmed the applicability of the sub judice rule in the Philippines, supported by ethical canons (CPR Rule 13.02) and rules on indirect contempt (Rule 71), finding that respondent's numerous public statements discussing the merits, attacking the Court's integrity, imputing motives, and predicting dire outcomes clearly violated this rule and tended to influence or degrade the administration of justice.
• Respondent's statements went beyond legitimate defense or reiteration of arguments in pleadings; they constituted direct attacks against the Court and its members, violating her duty of respect (CPR Canon 11) and propriety (NCJC Canons).
• The Court dismissed the claim of denial of due process, noting respondent was given multiple opportunities to be heard (invitation by Congress, comment on petition, filing motions, oral arguments in quo warranto case).
• Despite finding respondent liable for serious ethical transgressions, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING, exercising judicial clemency due to mitigating factors: her removal from office via the quo warranto decision, her lack of prior administrative offenses on record, and her length of service in government.

• Lawyer's Duty to Uphold the Dignity of the Legal Profession: Definition: Members of the Bar are expected to maintain a high standard of morality, honesty, and fair dealing, with conduct beyond reproach at all times. Application: Sereno's public attacks and disregard for judicial processes were deemed unbecoming of a lawyer and former Chief Justice, failing to uphold the profession's dignity.
• Indivisibility of a Lawyer's Personality: Definition: A lawyer cannot separate their identity as an attorney from their identity as a private citizen; ethical standards apply to both professional and private conduct. Application: Sereno's argument that she should be judged merely as a litigant was rejected, as her duties as a lawyer and Justice persisted even when she was a party to the case.
• Sub Judice Rule (as an Ethical Standard): Definition: Restricts public comments on pending judicial proceedings that tend to prejudice the issue, influence the court, or obstruct justice administration. Application: The Court applied this not for contempt but as an ethical requirement under CPR/NCJC; Sereno's extensive public discussion of the quo warranto case merits, attacks on judges, and predictions of outcome violated this standard.
• Distinction between Administrative Discipline and Contempt: Definition: Administrative disciplinary actions enforce ethical codes (CPR/NCJC) with the purpose of preserving professional integrity, while contempt proceedings protect court dignity and punish obstruction using tests like "clear and present danger." Application: The Court explicitly ruled that the "clear and present danger" test is for contempt and does not apply to this administrative case judging ethical violations under CPR/NCJC.
• Lawyer's Duty of Respect Towards the Courts (CPR Canon 11): Definition: Lawyers must observe and maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers and insist on similar conduct by others. Application: Sereno's public statements casting aspersions, imputing bias, and undermining the Court's integrity directly violated this canon.
• Lawyer's Duty Regarding Pending Litigation (CPR Rule 13.02): Definition: Lawyers shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. Application: Sereno's media campaign and public speeches discussing the quo warranto case were found to be clear violations of this rule.
• Judicial Conduct Standards (NCJC Canons 1-4): Definition: Codes mandating judicial independence, integrity, impartiality, and propriety in all conduct. Application: As a Justice (at the time of the conduct), Sereno was bound by these higher standards; her actions were found deficient in maintaining the dignity, impartiality, and propriety expected of a judicial officer.
• Court's Plenary Power to Discipline Lawyers: Definition: The Supreme Court possesses inherent and constitutionally mandated authority to regulate the legal profession and impose sanctions on erring members. Application: The Court exercised this power in deciding Sereno's administrative liability and determining the appropriate penalty.
• Judicial Clemency: Definition: The Court's discretion to impose a lighter penalty than warranted, considering mitigating circumstances, often aiming for reformation rather than punishment. Application: Applied here to reduce Sereno's penalty from potential suspension to reprimand with a stern warning, citing her removal via quo warranto, clean prior record, and government service length.

• "The fact that respondent was not the judge nor the counsel but a litigant in the subject case does not strip her off of her membership in the Bar, as well as her being a Member and the head of the highest court of the land at that time. Her being a litigant does not mean that she was free to conduct herself in less honorable manner than that expected of a lawyer or a judge."
• "The case at bar, however, is not a contempt proceeding... Rather, in this administrative matter, the Court is discharging its Constitutionally-mandated duty to discipline members of the Bar and judicial officers... Thus, contrary to respondent's argument, the 'clear and present danger' rule does not find application in this case. What applies in this administrative matter is the CPR and NCJC..."
• "It was unfortunate that this seemed to have created the impression that she rallied those in political movements with their own agenda, tolerating attacks on her colleagues in social and traditional media... She may not have met the reasonable expectation of a magistrate and a Chief Justice that, whatever the reasons and even at the cost of her own personal discomfort, she-as the leader of the Court-should not be the first to cause public shame and humiliation of her colleagues and the institution she represents." (Quoting J. Leonen's Dissent in the quo warranto case, adopted partly in this decision's reasoning).
• "The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons..."
• "This Court is not merciless and opts to dispense judicial clemency even if not sought by respondent. To be clear, however, this accommodation is not a condonation of respondent's wrongdoings but a second chance for respondent to mend her ways..."

• Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 & June 19, 2018): The main quo warranto case from which this administrative matter arose; the show cause order was issued in its decision, and facts/observations from it were foundational.
• P/Supt. Marantan v. Atty. Diokno (726 Phil. 642 (2014)): Discussed sub judice and the "clear and present danger" test in contempt context; Distinguished by the Court because the present case is administrative, not contempt, and Sereno's statements were deemed beyond mere reiterations of pleadings.
• Lejano v. People (652 Phil. 512 (2010) - J. Brion Separate Opinion): Cited regarding the concept and application of the sub judice rule in the Philippine context despite the absence of a jury system.
• Montencillo v. Gica (158 Phil. 443 (1974)): Cited to emphasize the lawyer's duty under Canon 11 CPR to maintain respect towards the courts. Followed.
• Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo (561 Phil. 325 (2007)): Cited as precedent where a lawyer was suspended for resorting to the press instead of proper judicial channels, violating CPR Canons 11 and 13.02. Analogous conduct.
• Judge Pantanosas v. Atty. Pamatong (787 Phil. 86 (2016)): Cited as precedent where a lawyer was suspended for slanderous public remarks against a judge and using the press for grievances. Analogous conduct.
• Advincula v. Atty. Macabata (546 Phil. 431 (2007)): Cited for outlining factors considered in determining disciplinary sanctions and stating the primary purposes of lawyer discipline. Applied in determining Sereno's penalty.
• Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre (599 Phil. 182 (2009)): Cited for the general principle regarding the high standards expected of lawyers.
• Radjaie v. Atty. Alovera (392 Phil. 1 (2000)): Cited for the imperative of high morality in the legal profession.
• Barrios v. Atty. Martinez (485 Phil. 1 (2004)): Cited regarding the higher standard expected of judges embodying competence, integrity, and independence.
• Valencia v. Atty. Antiniw (579 Phil. 1 (2008)): Cited for the principle that the Court's authority to discipline members is a bounden duty.

• Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR):
  • Canon 11 (Observing and Maintaining Respect Due to Courts and Judicial Officers)
  • Canon 13 (Relying Upon Merits of Cause and Refraining from Impropriety Tending to Influence the Court)
  • Rule 13.02 (Prohibition on making public statements in media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion)
• New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC):
  • Canon 1 (Independence) - Sections 3, 7, 8
  • Canon 2 (Integrity) - Sections 1, 2
  • Canon 3 (Impartiality) - Sections 2, 4
  • Canon 4 (Propriety) - Sections 2, 6
• Rules of Court:
  • Rule 71, Section 3(c) & (d) (Indirect Contempt provisions related to abuse/interference with court proceedings and improper conduct degrading justice administration - referenced in discussion of sub judice).